I guess calling a fun is much faster than sending messages between
processes.
And a fun as generator can be receiving messages under the hood.
>> Umm, I just realised that a stream/generator would need to be a function
>> that returns a function that can be called repeatedly to generate the
>> sequence, probably terminating with a well-known sequence terminating
>> exception.
>>>> This would solve the problem of the generators needing to be reset
>> during nested loops in a comprehension.
>>>> Can somebody explain why it is that you wouldn't do such things with an
> Erlang process instead of something like what you describe here? The
> main issue with processes, as far as I've been able to determine by just
> thinking about it, is that they don't really get "garbage collected" so
> your code can't just forget about them like generators in other
> languages (or like funs in Erlang).
>> --
> [ I love pre-moistened towelettes ] Mike McNally -- > _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
>>http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>>>